Abstract
Rural areas in Canada and elsewhere are the scene of extensive and
rapid change associated with the rise of industrial agriculture,
increasing farm size, decline of rural populations, more intensive use
of land, increasing use of fertilizers and technology, loss of natural
areas, pollution and the breakdown of traditional ways of life. This
paper analyzes these changes historically principally in terms of their
association with rational and top-down planning, notably since World War
II. The paper also discusses changes in ecological, planning and other
theory and practice that offer prospects for greater conservation and a
more sustainable approach in rural areas. The paper ends with
description of ah interactive, adaptive and civic approach to planning
at local, national, and international scales. Ways of applying this
model focus on mutual learning among the various groups and individuals
in and outside of rural areas including civic fora, civic research
groups, and heritage landscape guides.
Resume
Les zoaes rurales au Canada et ailleurs connaissent des changements
massifs et rapides associes a rascension de l'agriculture
industrielle, a l'augmentation de la taille des fermes, au declin
des populations rurales, a une utilisation plus intensive des terres, a
l'utilisation accrue des fertilisants et de la technologie, a la
perte des espaces naturels, a la pollution et a l'eclatement des
modes de vie traditionnels. Dans cet article, l'auteur analyse ces
changements d'un point de vue historique, principalement en termes
de leur association a la planification rationnelle et descendante,
notamment depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale. II examine egalement les
changements en matiere d'ecologie, de planification et autres
theories et pratiques qui offrent des perspectives de meilleure
conservation et une approche plus durable dans les zones rurales.
L'auteur conclut avec la description d'une approche
interactive, adaptative et civique a la planification a l'echelle
locale, nationale et internationale. Les manieres d'appliquer ces
mode1es mettent l'emphase sur rapprantissage mutuel au sein des
divers groupes et particuliers, a l'intedeur comme a
l'exterieur des zones rurales, notamment au moyen de forum et
groupes de recherche civiques et de guides sur les paysages patrimoniaux
(Heritage Landscape Guides).
Keywords
Rural, conservation, sustainability, planning theory, civics,
Canada
**********
The Meaning of Rural Sustainability
The concept of rural sustainability is a complex one. The general
concept is incompletely defined as indeed, are its constituent parts:
Rural and Sustainability. We can think of the urban and the rural where
the latter includes the cultivated and the wild. Yet it is obviously
difficult to decide where one begins and the other ends. Urban, rural,
and the wild merge into one another. Distinctions among them are often
made arbitrarily for accounting, legal, or related reasons.
Sustainability is ah even more elusive concept. What is it that we
are trying to sustain in a rural or other area? Is it family or other
social conditions rather than corporate ones? Is it a way of life? Is it
a mix of agricultural, lumbering, mining, recreational, residential and
associated land use patterns?
I suggest that the terms--rural, and sustainability, and the larger
concept of rural sustainability--are used for the most patt, not to
define more precisely what the nature of the rural landscape should be,
but what it should not be. Rural sustainability, and other related
concepts, seem mainly to be put forward as a way of reacting to unwanted
changes in the economic, social, and environmental conditions in areas
outside of cities or urban areas.
Many rural landscapes are undergoing pressure to more to an
industrial and corporate model. The push is toward lowering costs
through greater specialization and efficiency in production so as to be
able to compete in a wider continental or global "open
market". These pressures, in turn, lead to a focus on: a narrower
range of crops or livestock; greater use of increasingly specific
fertilizers and other advanced high-yield technology; lower labor
requirements; farm amalgamation; population migration to urban areas;
decline of small villages and towns; more intensive use of land;
drainage and reclamation of wetlands; cutting of woods and forests; loss
of natural areas; and the breakdown of traditional ways of life. The
term, rural sustainability, seems to be a way of conceptualizing a model
or vision intended to avoid these frequently deleterious impacts on
affected people and society.
Some General Considerations in Planning:
Rural sustainability is a complex concept defying clear definition.
What are we trying to sustain and how can we measure success? My own
contribution to a discussion of rural sustainability as a better way
forward, is not to offer specific definitions or solutions leading to a
more specific alternative vision. Rather my focus will be on ways of
planning, managing and making decisions that should assist in avoiding
the more extreme changes that seem to be of concern to those interested
in rural sustainability. My observations and experiences arise for the
most part from Canada, although they involve the United States and other
countries. My hope is that these observations will be useful at a time
when Poland and other countries may be about to enter the European Union
and so encounter the development of an industrial or corporate approach
to rural areas in a very direct way.
We can begin with some general considerations. The first is that my
observations are colored by my background as a university professor of
geography and planning. Largely because of this background, I tend to
have a broad or inclusive view rather than a specialized or exclusive
one. My approach is that of a human ecologist with an interest in policy
and planning. This research interest has been expressed over the last
four decades in numerous situations involving the evolution and
development of land use policy and practice. These include experiences
in university administration, as well as with government and
non-governmental organizations.
Certain understandings or perspectives have arisen from these
experiences. The first is that although initiative or leadership may
vary with the situation, an array of government and non-governmental
organizations, including universities, are generally involved directly
or indirectly in any significant policy or planning situation. The
second is that, for a variety of economic, social, environmental and
political reasons, the roles of government and non-governmental
organizations change with circumstances and with time.
An individual organization or set of related organizations may plan
toward preferred goals and objectives. However, seldom do these plans
proceed in a straight line. The plans are influenced and modified by the
responses of other organizations. Furthermore, once a decision is made,
many organizations and individuals cannot be expected to fall in line
but rather to search for alternative ways of meeting their own values,
interests and goals. In other words planning and decision making tends
to be adaptive and frequently does not proceed in accordance with
initial plans. Another important point in this regard is the occurrence
of unforeseen circumstances or "surprises" which can have
profound effects on planning, goals, objectives, policies, procedures
and directions.
Yet another general consideration is that government and
Non-governmental organizations frequently involve a range of perceptions
of a field of interest. In these circumstances perspectives and fields
of interest frequently overlap. Boundaries between research disciplines
and corporate and civic sectors of interest generally cannot be
precisely drawn. In this context, specialized or focused disciplines, or
sectors of interest, and the agencies and organizations that house them,
often are viewed as sharing similar backgrounds, attitudes and values.
Yet these organizations often house considerable variation in interest
and position, depending on the topic, issue or challenge at hand. It
follows from this that the names we apply to disciplines, sectors or
other foci of interest to us, may give the appearance of, but frequently
are not, precise and universally understood. The approximations of
meaning inherent in much of our language and terminology, lead to the
expectation that our terms and meanings will frequently or even
generally have to be discussed, evaluated and negotiated with others who
do not share our understandings.
Such general considerations in planning have been noted by
knowledgeable and experienced persons since at least the 1960s.
Observations on these considerations often have been made in the context
of evaluations of the results of a rational goal-driven approach to
planning by corporate agencies or organizations in and outside of
government. These critiques or evaluations have frequently resulted in
the advocacy of alternative planning approaches, theories or models
(Hudson, 1979). These include: incremental planning which proceeds on a
short-term opportunistic basis; mixed scanning which involves longer
term goals; and transactive planning, which basically advocates
negotiation and trade-offs among organizations and individuals in
arriving at achievable goals, objectives, policies and procedures in the
mutual interest (Hudson, 1979; Friedmann and Weaver, 1977).
Other relevant approaches and theories include adaptive management.
This builds on computer-based modeling and frequent consultation with
affected parties to anticipate the effects of certain policies and
procedures, avoid surprises, and select a desirable course forward
(Holling, 1978; Gunderson et al., 1995). More recent variants include
shared decision making (SDM) which brings the varied organizations or
groups involved in a field of interest together to negotiate trade-offs
and plan the way forward with the support and assistance rather than the
direction, of government (Cardinall and Day, 1998).
A final example, which will be discussed more fully later, is
interactive and adaptive or civic planning. This builds for example, on
transactive planning, by identifying rather precisely the processes that
are used by individuals and organizations in making decisions and
advocating that these processes form the basic framework for interaction
and adaptation among the diverse interests involved in a planning
situation. An interactive and adaptive approach is ah inherent part of
civic planning where this involves bringing the diverse groups involved
in a planning situation together, to negotiate and learn their way
forward (Nelson and Serafin, 1994; Nelson and Serafin, 1996; and
Dempster, 2002).
With the foregoing as brief background, my intention now is to
present some observations on the experiences that led to my current
focus on the civics approach to planning and decision making in both
rural and urban areas. My approach is fundamentally pluralistic and lays
out what led me to favor a broad inclusive approach involving all
affected parties. The civics approach arose gradually from experiences
with policy and practice over a forty-year period. The experiences will
be discussed in a chronological fashion, moving through the 1960s,
1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Although this decadal approach is not always
precise, it does provide a good working framework for my observations,
which focus on Canadian experiences. Ultimately, the paper has to do
with changin9 roles and relationships among governments and private
organizations and individuals. My observations are directed mainly to
rural areas including northern wildlands. But they frequently also apply
to urban areas and to land use and environmental planning and decision
making generally.
The 1960s
In Canada in the 1960s, the federal government was the dominant
player. In World War II, the government assumed sweeping economic and
political powers and worked increasingly with the private corporations,
which were a mainstay of the war machine. Industrial growth reached high
levels and continued to expand in the 1950s and 1960s, supplying major
markets in Europe, which were still recovering from the conflict.
Populations in Canada grew rapidly naturally and through migration.
Incomes rose, as did housing, jobs, interest in leisure time, and
consumerism.
The side effects of the growth were numerous and included growing
concern for working and social conditions, education and the
environment. Environmental concerns were especially salient, notably
pollution of streams and lakes. In rural areas increasing use of
phosphates and other fertilizers contributed strongly to eutrophication,
for example, of Lake Erie, which at one point, was portrayed as
"dead." National parks were planned to meet leisure and
recreational needs. These plans carne into conflict with logging and
other operations as well as with the growing strength of the wilderness
movement. This movement worked to protect large areas not only from
logging and other exploitive activities, but also from road construction
and other technology intended to facilitate recreation and tourism in
relatively undisturbed areas in the parks.
People increasingly saw themselves as being affected by government
and corporate decisions without any opportunity for input. Interest grew
in the way decisions were made and in greater public participation in
them. The results included more concern for environment, more relevant
research by universities and an increase in the number of
non-governmental organizations(NGOs) lobbying for what they saw as
better decisions by government. Examples of such organizations in Canada
included the Canadian Environmental Law Association, Pollution Probe,
the National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada, later the
Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS), and the Canadian Arctic
Resources Committee. These organizations often included academics and
other professionals who undertook analyses, identified alternatives,
held outreach and educational meetings, and participated in
representations to government with other citizens.
An example is the National and Provincial Parks Association. This
and other groups were able to persuade the government to produce park
master plans, hold public meetings on them, and consider the responses
in decisions. Such NGO activity arose largely because of concern over
environmental impacts and led to the cancellation of extensive road
plans and a large downhill ski proposal in Banff National Park. In
retrospect, salient changes in the 1960s were toward the use of more
research and information as well as public participation in planning and
decision making, which was still seen as largely the responsibility of
governments.
The 1970s
Significant changes in the 1970s included the way planning and
decision making proceeded, and eventually, changes in the role of
government, especially at the federal level. The so-called "oil
shock" of the early 1970s, arose when Middle Eastern and other oil
producers raised the crude oil price from about $4.00 a barrel to $10.00
and higher. This increase reverberated throughout the economy, raising
prices generally. This, in turn, led to inflationary pressures and to
the setting of high interest rates intended to curtail these pressures.
Interest rates were close to 20 percent by 1980. This situation was an
unanticipated one, a 'surprise', which led to expansion in the
search for and development of oil in Canada and the U.S., particularly
Arctic oil, which had been too expensive prior to the increases in oil
prices. One major result was the deve